1. An auctioneer’s declaration of a winning bid creates a contract between the bidder and the seller. An auctioneer is one that conducts an auction. Here, the district court found Mary DePuydt was an agent of the Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Lee Engelhardt, authorized to conduct the sale of real property through the auction at issue, and that she declared Appellants the winning bidders of the real properties at issue. Did the district court err in determining that Mary DePuydt’s declaration—because she did not hold an auctioneer’s license—the did not create contracts between Appellants and the Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Lee Engelhardt?
2. The statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded or else it is waived. Here, Defendants did not plead the statute of frauds as a defense. Defendants did not reference the defense in their pretrial filings. Defendants did not mention the defense during trial. Defendants did not identify the defense in their post-trial filings. Nevertheless, the district court applied the defense to Appellants’ contracts with the Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Engelhardt. Did the district court err in its sua sponte application of the statute of frauds?
3. Tortious interference with contract occurs when a party unjustifiably causes another to breach a contract. Here, Defendant Tom Gross failed to submit bids conforming with the rules for the action after he elected to not read the auction rules. Nevertheless, after hearing the auctioneer declare Appellants to be the winning bidders, he sought to be declared the winning bidder. Did his inducement to have 8 the auctioneer attempt to set aside Appellants’ contracts, and to untimely accept his nonconforming bids, constitute an unjustifiable interference with Appellants’ contracts?

Issues of Gross
------------------------
1. Whether the District Court erred in not determining that the Estate’s attorney had authority as agent of the Estate to enter into a contract between the Estate and Appellee.
2. Whether the District Court erred in not specifically determining that the Personal Representative and the Personal Representative’s Agent modified the bidding conditions and/or waived any irregularities in the bidding process and awarding the bid to Appellee.
3. Whether the statute of frauds applies.
4. Whether Appellee tortiously interfered with a purported contract between the Estate and the Appellants.

Issues of Engelhardt
---------------------
1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in full and specifically Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract against Yvonne Engelhart, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Lee Engelhardt.